The bistander thread

[bistander]

Excuse me sir. bistander

With my answer you want to invalidate or favor, it is not about that, can you explain to us why there is a reduction in consumption in the engine, and why yes ?, and why not ?.

But as I said before, if we don't go to the experimental process, and we do the tests that when there are fewer cores, there is less consumption, and when there are more cores there is more consumption, you say that it is irrelevant at the nominal speed.

Mr. Alex,

So you are unwilling to confirm Sir Isaac Newton knows more than Mr. Turion about physics.

And I did address (answer) your question about consumption reduction.

Mr. Alex,
...
I might, very likely, be able to tell you those things, if Mr. Turion would show the experiment and data, and answer questions about it. ...
bi

By the way, it is obvious whose side you're on. You love Mr. Turion and despise me. But truth knows no favorites. Must you test everything to know it? Is the earth flat? What's the tallest mountain on earth? Is arsenic poisonous? Or do you accept some things as true, or facts?

There is a lot which I know from education, experience and previous testing in the fields of electric machinery and energy, so I feel comfortable and confident in what I submit here. I don't need to do every test. There's a good chance I've done the test in question years ago. But I don't want you to blindly accept my posts. Please research and study what I say. If you find disagreement from a credible reference, please show me. Or perform a test and show me.
bi

[alexelectric]

Mr. Alex,

You say "you already have an advance". Not so fast. How do you know? Perhaps, like the bifilar coil debunker, it only appears like "less consumption" because the method has inflated consumption at the starting point. And nobody has compared this scheme, with and without, using conventional wound coil(s), vs bifilar coil(s), with and without, conditions being equal. Novice experimenters often jump to conclusions, especially when not skilled in the field of science and in a hurry to convince others. If they see any evidence to support their theory or claim, they rush to publish it and suspend further investigation, never finding the real reason.
bi

We are with the cores and magnets, only, and not with the coils

[Turion]

CORRECT? It is not a matter of being correct. Sure, there is an attractive force between the magnet and core at TDC. But there is already a force equal and opposite, otherwise the gap would disappear and magnet and core will touch. That attractive force between the magnet and core is in the axial direction. It represents no drag to rotation about the axis at the "split second". So it doesn't matter if you add magnets which you think offset that force.

YES, the attractive force is in the axial direction, but it still exists. We both know there is no "force" that is equal and opposite. (Wikipedia will come in handy here as its definition of force doesn't match what you are claiming.) You have mechanical contrivances that PREVENT those two things from coming into contact. That's like saying a nail in the wall is exerting "force" to hold up a picture. Holding something in place mechanically does not meet the definition of FORCE now does it? Or have you changed the laws of physics? How are you going to try and twist THIS one around.

As each magnet aligns with each core there is a moment of force (attraction) in an axial direction that must be offset by a combination of centrifugal force, inertia and magnetic neutralization. Centrifigal force assures rotation but the motors ability to sustain the centrifugal force results in an increase in its amp draw, This can be offset by the magnetic neutralization.

That's not in a nutshell.

There is attraction of the magnet to the core. That is the point
I invite you to go out in your front yard and push your house onto your neighbors property. You will not be able to do it, but you will expend ENERGY giving it a try. That is the same thing that is happening with the motor when it tries to move a magnet from a "locked" position on a rotor If it can't move it because it is not strong enough, what will happen to the motor if you keep running it? A certain amount of energy is required to be expended to neutralize the force of attraction between the rotor magnet and the core BEFORE THE ROTOR CAN EVEN BEGIN TO MOVE. Once the rotor actually starts moving, then YES, the amount of energy required to move it away from the core is equal to that which attracted it to the core on approach. That is what I have ALWAYS said.


Now we have the advantage of inertia when the rotor is spinning that helps us overcome that "moment in time" but it still exists. And magnetic neutralization eliminates its negative effect.

Increased knowledge in regards to force and work is where you'd (you would) benefit.

Actually BUILDING something and observing the forces, reactions and effects rather than making assumptions is where you'd (YOU would) benefit

And I notice you used the term TDC even though you call others out for using it since it applies to fuel powered engines. Interesting.

[alexelectric]

Excuse me sir. bistander

With my answer you want to invalidate or favor, it is not about that, can you explain to us why there is a reduction in consumption in the engine, and why yes ?, and why not ?.

But as I said before, if we don't go to the experimental process, and we do the tests that when there are fewer cores, there is less consumption, and when there are more cores there is more consumption, you say that it is irrelevant at the nominal speed.

[bistander]

...
Now if you have a decrease in motor consumption with neutralization magnets, well, you already have an advance, less consumption to drive a rotor, it is an energy saving, which is not what you are looking for.
...

Mr. Alex,

You say "you already have an advance". Not so fast. How do you know? Perhaps, like the bifilar coil debunker, it only appears like "less consumption" because the method has inflated consumption at the starting point. And nobody has compared this scheme, with and without, using conventional wound coil(s), vs bifilar coil(s), with and without, conditions being equal. Novice experimenters often jump to conclusions, especially when not skilled in the field of science and in a hurry to convince others. If they see any evidence to support their theory or claim, they rush to publish it and suspend further investigation, never finding the real reason.
bi

[bistander]

I can tell you that it is best to continue studying and verifying what we have in this project.

For you, and according to your knowledge, you can tell me where the savings in engine consumption comes from, what is being manifested and why this decrease occurs.

Mr. Alex,

Can't you answer a question?

I might, very likely, be able to tell you those things, if Mr. Turion would show the experiment and data, and answer questions about it. Notice that I don't say that it doesn't occur. I take issue with the reasons he gives and his logic.

But again, this has nothing to do with his extraordinary claim of more output power than input. Can you show that? Would you not like to see Mr. Turion's drive actually work and do what he claims?

So again, who do you believe, Newton or Turion?
bi

[alexelectric]

Mr. Alex,

Do you agree with Turion that Newton is wrong and it uses more power to keep a heavier rotor spinning at a constant RPM?
bi

I can tell you that it is best to continue studying and verifying what we have in this project.

For you, and according to your knowledge, you can tell me where the savings in engine consumption comes from, what is being manifested and why this decrease occurs.

[bistander]

With the aim of continuing to build and with respect, I comment to you Mr. Bistander.

I wonder if Mr. Bistander with the knowledge that he expresses, and the comments of him.
He knows that every phenomenon of knowledge that is presented must be observed, experienced, and see the variables and factors that are presented in the object of study, on which you comment Mr. Bistander about initial torque, moment of inertia, kinetic energy in the mass in motion, etc., all these factors is not alien to our understanding.

And within those factors that he mentions so much, something is missing, something is not taking into account, something is estimating with error, within the same principles that it recreates, it has the solution, but does not want to find or see the vector, factor that explains why it is achieved (magnetic neutralization) of the core-magnet attraction, Mr. Dave expresses why it is achieved, resulting in a decrease in motor consumption.

With all that it illustrates, it does not fit with what is being experienced, observed and measured in the reduction of engine consumption, as a good experimenter, you should present your conclusions with an experimental prototype, and it is not valid to say that after the Mr. Dave show your results, and I can believe that you already made the prototype Mr. Bistander, but since you cannot accept that maybe Mr. Dave is right, and that you have been given a parameter to take into account to give the explanation, Now if you have a decrease in motor consumption with neutralization magnets, well, you already have an advance, less consumption to drive a rotor, it is an energy saving, which is not what you are looking for.

And with all your illustration Mr. Bistander, you have to rethink and reinvent yourself, look, it would be interesting if you had the honor of redefining or updating a concept, without taking credit from anyone only where everyone has to contribute or has contributed.

Every advance of knowledge is important no matter how small it may be, if Mr. Dave's prototype works as it says, and let's say that it worked optimally for about 5 minutes so to speak, it is an advance, 10 minutes, 1 hour, 5 hours, etc. . They are advances, will continue to be refined, by Mr. Dave, or by other researchers, engineers, students.

Mr. Alex,

Do you agree with Turion that Newton is wrong and it uses more power to keep a heavier rotor spinning at a constant RPM?
bi

[alexelectric]

With the aim of continuing to build and with respect, I comment to you Mr. Bistander.

I wonder if Mr. Bistander with the knowledge that he expresses, and the comments of him.
He knows that every phenomenon of knowledge that is presented must be observed, experienced, and see the variables and factors that are presented in the object of study, on which you comment Mr. Bistander about initial torque, moment of inertia, kinetic energy in the mass in motion, etc., all these factors is not alien to our understanding.

And within those factors that he mentions so much, something is missing, something is not taking into account, something is estimating with error, within the same principles that it recreates, it has the solution, but does not want to find or see the vector, factor that explains why it is achieved (magnetic neutralization) of the core-magnet attraction, Mr. Dave expresses why it is achieved, resulting in a decrease in motor consumption.

With all that it illustrates, it does not fit with what is being experienced, observed and measured in the reduction of engine consumption, as a good experimenter, you should present your conclusions with an experimental prototype, and it is not valid to say that after the Mr. Dave show your results, and I can believe that you already made the prototype Mr. Bistander, but since you cannot accept that maybe Mr. Dave is right, and that you have been given a parameter to take into account to give the explanation, Now if you have a decrease in motor consumption with neutralization magnets, well, you already have an advance, less consumption to drive a rotor, it is an energy saving, which is not what you are looking for.

And with all your illustration Mr. Bistander, you have to rethink and reinvent yourself, look, it would be interesting if you had the honor of redefining or updating a concept, without taking credit from anyone only where everyone has to contribute or has contributed.

Every advance of knowledge is important no matter how small it may be, if Mr. Dave's prototype works as it says, and let's say that it worked optimally for about 5 minutes so to speak, it is an advance, 10 minutes, 1 hour, 5 hours, etc. . They are advances, will continue to be refined, by Mr. Dave, or by other researchers, engineers, students.

[bistander]

So you're saying I am correct. And how did I "benefit" from "increasing my knowledge of related fundamentals, especially in the area of Newtonian physics." I'm saying the same damn thing I've always said. Add MORE coils (with cores) and it increases the amp draw of the motor. Add more magnets on your rotor with the same number of coils (with cores) and it increases the amp draw of your motor. Either I am correct or I am not. Which is it?

YOU are the one who said that the magnetic forces of approaching magnet being attracted to the core was equal to the magnet that had just passed the core being attracted in the OPPOSITE direction (In so many words) So magnetic neutralization had no effect on output at load, which we BOTHG know is BS. There IS a moment in time when the attraction of the rotor magnet to the core is not offset by anything because it is neither approaching nor leaving. And in this moment that attraction is SO GREAT that it causes the amp draw of the motor to increase, which is what the offsetting magnets neutralize, just as I have ALWAYS SAID. CORRECT?

CORRECT? It is not a matter of being correct. Sure, there is an attractive force between the magnet and core at TDC. But there is already a force equal and opposite, otherwise the gap would disappear and magnet and core will touch. That attractive force between the magnet and core is in the axial direction. It represents no drag to rotation about the axis at the "split second". So it doesn't matter if you add magnets which you think offset that force.

Your additional magnets do offset tangential forces either side of TDC so can be effective anti-cogging.

Increased knowledge in regards to force and work is where you'd (you would) benefit.

As I've said many times, this is just a distraction tactic by you. It has no effect on you output/input power claim.
bi

[Turion]

So you're saying I am correct. And how did I "benefit" from "increasing my knowledge of related fundamentals, especially in the area of Newtonian physics." I'm saying the same damn thing I've always said. Add MORE coils (with cores) and it increases the amp draw of the motor. Add more magnets on your rotor with the same number of coils (with cores) and it increases the amp draw of your motor. Either I am correct or I am not. Which is it?

YOU are the one who said that the magnetic forces of approaching magnet being attracted to the core was equal to the magnet that had just passed the core being attracted in the OPPOSITE direction (In so many words) So magnetic neutralization had no effect on output at load, which we BOTHG know is BS. There IS a moment in time when the attraction of the rotor magnet to the core is not offset by anything because it is neither approaching nor leaving. And in this moment that attraction is SO GREAT that it causes the amp draw of the motor to increase, which is what the offsetting magnets neutralize, just as I have ALWAYS SAID. CORRECT?

[bistander]

As I recall, your explanation was that the magnetic forces of approaching magnet being attracted FOREWORD toward the core was equal to the magnet passing by the core being attracted BACKWARD. So magnetic neutralization has nothing to “neutralize”. Wasn’t that your position?

And I said there is a split second in time where the magnet is neither approaching nor leaving that is not offset by ANYTHING except the neutralizing magnet.

was that not your position? And you babbled s bunch of garbage about there being no energy expended without actual movement so my “one instant in time” didn’t hold water. Is that not so? What have I got wrong about the discussion? Because all of this just proves how little you understand about reality.

Not quite right. You'd benefit from increasing your knowledge of related fundamentals, especially in the area of Newtonian physics.

And one basic misconception you relate here is "magnetic neutralization has nothing to neutralize". I've said that what you call magnetic neutralization actually is an anticogging scheme. Therefore does offer some advantage, especially accelerating, like when a weak prime mover falls short of breakaway torque.

bi

[BroMikey]

And I said there is a split second in time where the magnet is neither approaching nor leaving that is not offset by ANYTHING except the neutralizing magnet.

great point, you wonder if he got it. Or any of the fine details you post. It is like you never said it with these guys. It goes right over their heads and that is the way they want it. School is a stumbling block designed to be evasive in discussion. Oh what about 8 other inventors findings and if that doesn't work, find another 3 or 4 names to inject into a simple common sense test.

I said he looks equipped to do tests, I never thought for 1 minute he would. Maybe he could get his grandson to lead the way for these tests because a child has no built in brain freeze coming from schools.

Hell all I do is hot glue some magnets on a wood board cut into a circle and run a 5 min test.

College level students have been forbidden to run a test if teacher says it is unworthy. The students have been dumped down to stupid, oh their grammar is real special alone with the historical records from A-Z or else you don't get the job. Here are the answers, "Say this and you will pass" Then all the students say "Yes Massa"

[Turion]

Quantum,
Here's a video of the basic info for building the simplest version of the generator. You said you want to build a coil. What is it you are going to attempt to prove? Are you looking to investigate Lenz neutral coils or Magnetic Neutralization? What size rotor will you be using, and how many magnets? Will the magnets face out from the rotor axially or radially?
https://youtu.be/WWa81kmhVyc

I can help you with whatever

[Turion]

As I recall, your explanation was that the magnetic forces of approaching magnet being attracted FOREWORD toward the core was equal to the magnet passing by the core being attracted BACKWARD. So magnetic neutralization has nothing to “neutralize”. Wasn’t that your position?

And I said there is a split second in time where the magnet is neither approaching nor leaving that is not offset by ANYTHING except the neutralizing magnet.

was that not your position? And you babbled s bunch of garbage about there being no energy expended without actual movement so my “one instant in time” didn’t hold water. Is that not so? What have I got wrong about the discussion? Because all of this just proves how little you understand about reality.